Re: PEAR Group Meeting Minutes 2008-03-09

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Joshua Eichorn <josh@bluga.net> wrote: > > Joe Stump wrote: > > > > > On Apr 12, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Helgi Þormar Þorbjörnsson wrote: > > > > > > > Now I want to hear some discussion from the developers so to how they > > > feel about it, for example Joe and Till, would you guys use the PEAR1 > > > SVN repo instead of googlecode if we offered it ? If not, then why > > > (I'm interested in knowing what I can improve on > > > pearweb/infrastructure wise to lure people "back home") > > > > > > > I put my code on Google Code (or my own SVN repository) for a number of > reasons: > > > > 1.) I want the control to do what I wish with my own code and repository. > There are things that I like doing in my day-to-day maintenance that, I > believe, sit outside of what PEAR should be providing or overseeing. > > > > 2.) I can quickly add and remove developers on my own from being able to > access the repository. > > > > 3.) I trust Google more than I trust a merry band of part time PEAR > maintainers to keep my code secure, backed up and available. This is NOT > meant as a slight against the great work all of the PEAR guys do; it's > simply the reality. Google Code has a team of full time developers focused > on keeping my code repository up and running along while adding new > features. > > > > IMO, a better "plan of attack" would be to build PEAR's developer > resources on top of something like Google Code. It's one less thing we have > to worry about maintaining internally and it's free. Just a thought. Why > build the cow when you can get it for free? ;) > > > > --Joe > > > We could setup a pear project in google code and use it for svn hosting. > At a minimum we should do that for a full read only mirror. > > I for one would have no problem with using google code to supply svn for > pear (or even the wiki) we just need to decide what a reasonable approach > is. Wouldn't we be giving away too much control over to google ? Not that it's a problem but we'd lose a lot of the fun integration we had in mind for the SVN. But yes I could see us providing a read only mirror via them, as a backup I suppose on top of your existing backup approach. - Helgi